First on AI: Apple and Psystar concluded 17 months of litigation Tuesday when a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against the unauthorized Mac OS X hardware creator, banning it from selling hardware with Apple's operating system.

The ruling comes after both parties presented their oral arguments Monday afternoon before U.S. District Judge William Alsup. The judge banned Psystar from:

Copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing or creating derivative works of Mac OS X without authorization from Apple.

Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.

Playing any part in a product intended to circumvent Apple's methods for controlling Mac OS X, such as the methods used to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.

Doing anything to circumvent the rights held by Apple under the Copyright Act with respect to Mac OS X.

Alsup ruled that Psystar must comply with these by midnight on Dec. 31, 2009 at the latest. The Florida corporation has been ordered to immediately begin the process and take the quickest path to compliance.

Whether those statements apply to Psystar's Rebel EFI software, a $50 application that allows certain Intel-powered PCs to run Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, remains to be seen. Apple had hoped to ban Psystar from the sale of the software and alleged that Psystar had been "trafficking in circumvention devices." From his statements, Alsup would seem inclined to agree with Apple, but the judge refused to specifically mention the software in his ruling.

Alsup said he did so because Psystar's statements to the court avoided saying specifically what Rebel EFI does, so the judge felt it was inappropriate for him to determine whether the software falls within the scope of the injunction. However, he said the company's argument that it has a right to sell and distribute the software is weak, and likely would not hold up if properly tested in court.

"Whether such a defense would be successful on the merits, or face preclusion or other hurdles, this order cannot predict," Alsup said. "What is certain, however, is that until such a motion is brought, Psystar will be selling Rebel EFI at its peril, and risks finding itself in contempt if its new venture falls within the scope of the injunction."

The writing was on the wall for Psystar in November, when the court sided with Apple on a number of summary judgment points. Alsup, at that point, concluded that Psystar infringed on the copyrights owned by Apple and was in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- a decision that was reiterated in Tuesday's injunction.

Earlier this month, Psystar and Apple entered into a partial settlement in which the company agreed to pay $2.7 million in damages. While the settlement led to the end of sales for unauthorized hardware with Mac OS X, the payout -- and the fate of Rebel EFI -- are likely to be decided in a separate lawsuit filed by Psystar against Apple in Florida. In that suit, Psystar has alleged that Apple engaged in "anticompetitive attempts to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its Macintosh line of computers."

Alsup said he did so because Psystar's statements to the court avoided saying specifically what Rebel EFI does

More evasive BS chicanery from Psystar. These fools will go to any length to waste everyone's time.

"Whether such a defense would be successful on the merits, or face preclusion or other hurdles, this order cannot predict," Alsup said. "What is certain, however, is that until such a motion is brought, Psystar will be selling Rebel EFI at its peril, and risks finding itself in contempt if its new venture falls within the scope of the injunction."

Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.

Playing any part in a product intended to circumvent Apple's methods for controlling Mac OS X, such as the methods used to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.
-
Whether those statements apply to Psystar's Rebel EFI software, a $50 application that allows certain Intel-powered PCs to run Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, remains to be seen. Apple had hoped to ban Psystar from the sale of the software and alleged that Psystar had been "trafficking in circumvention devices." From his statements, Alsup would seem inclined to agree with Apple, but the judge refused to specifically mention the software in his ruling.

Pretty much your answer about Rebel EFI is right there, its just not spelled out in black and white. While that would be nice as it would save Apple some lawyer's fees, the above comments are pretty conclusive that Psystar's business model is completely toast.

Sure looks obvious and in black and white to me... Three of his guidelines directly apply to Rebel EFI. I think the judge is being cautious as he doesn't know the exact nature of Rebel EFI. I think it's a good call and the follow up comments also add to his credit.

This is GREAT. I've been waiting for this since the dawn of psystar. I come from the osx86 community, and feel like celebrating. Those jerks stole so much stuff we did it's not even funny. They got what they deserved. I have a small piece of faith restored in the american judicial system.

Quote:

The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

Just visited their website. All hardware labeled "out of stock." How disingenuous is that? Not a word about legal issues. Rebel EFI is being pushed--hard. Guess they figure it's their last chance to stick it to Apple. Hope they eat it.

Their product consumer "reviews" reek of bogusness. Not a single negative comment. Most of the rest sound like butt-kissing praise written by their own PR person in a way as to sound like real people.

What a bunch of tossers. I wish the court case would have ferreted out who was really behind this charade. Follow the money as was said in Deep Throat.

I glad Apple was able to defend its IP simply because they need a successful business model to do the necessary R&D, and to compensate the highly talented Apple engineers for their hard work. As a customer, I want the innovation to continue. To "commoditize" the OS would have been a disaster, IMO.

Just visited their website. All hardware labeled "out of stock." How disingenuous is that? Not a word about legal issues. Rebel EFI is being pushed--hard. Guess they figure it's their last chance to stick it to Apple. Hope they eat it.

Their product consumer "reviews" reek of bogusness. Not a single negative comment. Most of the rest sound like butt-kissing praise written by their own PR person in a way as to sound like real people.

What a bunch of tossers. I wish the court case would have ferreted out who was really behind this charade. Follow the money as was said in Deep Throat.

They've been acting unprofessionally and have been taunting Apple openly from day one. They deserve what's happening to them, and more

Psystar has always been more a Cowboy than a Hippie. Now weve changed lawyers to better reflect who we are. Camara & Sibley LLP of Houston, Texas, has officially become our primary legal counsel in our ongoing litigation with Apple.

Everyone here values openness. And thats how were going to fight Apple: in public. We have nothing to hide. We buy hundreds of copies of OS X legally, from retailers like Amazon and Apple itself. Were probably one of Apples biggest customers. Then we install these copies of OS X, along with kernel extensions that we wrote in-house, on computers that we buy and build. Then we resell the package to people like you. Thats it.

Apples copyright on OS X doesnt give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy. Apple cant tell an applications developer that it cant make a piece of Mac-compatible software. They cant forbid Mac users from writing blogs critical of Apple. And they cant tell us not to write kernel extensions that turn the computers we buy into Mac-compatible hardware.

A new trial date has been set for January 11, 2010, in federal court in San Francisco. As we move toward trial, well be keeping you informed about the arguments, the evidence, and whats going on in the case. And, come January, Camara & Sibley will be ready to fight for Psystar, guns blazin. We hope to see you there!

Psystar's statements to the court avoided saying specifically what Rebel EFI does

Seems Psystar is withholding information here . . .

Yep. That's why I think the judge made an excellent, albeit pragmatic call. Without knowing the exact nature, he can't exclude (or include) Rebel EFI in the ruling. However, qualifying his statements to "discourage" Psystar from trying to push Rebel EFI is hopefully strong enough to be taken by the upstarts to just drop it.

Psystar may feel they have made a good choice in keeping the Rebel EFI out of the courts in the recent ruling, but based on the judges qualifier, I really doubt that's the case.

I don't mind freedom of information, or have a problem with the Hackintosh community per se, because they don't ask money for what they do. It's not that I agree their actions are right, but less condemning since they have no intention to turn a profit from their miscreant behaviour.

This is GREAT. I've been waiting for this since the dawn of psystar. I come from the osx86 community, and feel like celebrating. Those jerks stole so much stuff we did it's not even funny. They got what they deserved. I have a small piece of faith restored in the american judicial system.

I assume the irony is intentional. But if not, allow me to point out to you that the American judicial system, in which your faith has been recently restored might soon disappoint you again. Some of Judge Alsup's injunctions could easily apply to OSX86. To wit:

"Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers."

the definition: Precedent means deferring to a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which forms the basis in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. The requirement that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis.

Precedent means that the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases. A recent decision in the same jurisdiction as the instant case will be given great weight. Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time to time a higher court will adopt the reasoning and conclusion of a lower court. In contract law, the term "condition precedent," means a situation which must exist before a party to a contract has to perform.

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.

Playing any part in a product intended to circumvent Apple's methods for controlling Mac OS X, such as the methods used to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.

Given those three, I really don't see how they could continue to sell the Rebel EFI. As to what affect this will have on OSX86? I'm not overly concerned, as I own all Apple hardware. IMO, Apple will never go after individuals who do this simply because they would never be able to find them, and it's really not worth the bother. A web site dedicated to it however...

That said, I have to express bewilderment at some of the sentiments expressed here. It seems to me we have a lot of Apple Apologists and hardcore anti-Psystar sentiment. Really....you're "celebrating" and expressing joy? Granted, Psystar's arguments and behavior are annoying. But, there was a time here where the overall tone of these forums was anti-establishment and quite critical of Apple. Things like the DCMA and EULAs were a big deal...and not popular at all. Obviously things have changed.

Examples:

Quote:

This is GREAT. I've been waiting for this since the dawn of psystar

Quote:

*Celebrates*

Finally reason is seen in open court.

Quote:

Congratulations in order for Apple. It is a sweet victory against a thief. And so other thieves beware because Apple is gonna get them.

Now, what Psystar was doing was certainly illegal. Namely, they were buying copies of Mac OS X at retail, essentially modifying them, and selling them with their own computers. They even used to call their computers "OpenMac." There are serious trademark and copyright issues here, and they got nailed for them.

Psystar raised another issue though: Is it improper that I buy a copy of OS X and make it run on my own machine? Is it wrong for me to modify my own product to enable it to run OS X? Can I then sell that product without OS X? Psystar focused on these type of arguments in public statements. Of course, this is not what they were actually doing. They used Apple trademarks, openly sold software to circumvent Apple's system and then sold the computer with Mac OS X. Therein lies the problem.

This ruling actually concerns me though, because IMO it strengthens EULAs (dangerously so). From what I understand, it is clearly illegal for me to take a purchased copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware. It's illegal for me to fit my machine with a chip that enables OS X to run. It's certainly illegal to sell that machine, with or without OS X. Frankly, I see a problem there.

This is where Psystar's public arguments have some merit and make some sense. Apple shouldn't be able to tell me what computer I can install OS X on for my own use any more than Toyota can tell me what roads to drive on. Apple shouldn't be able to prevent me from modifying my own machine to run OS X, nor prevent me from selling that machine without using their trademarks. Again though, I realize Psystar was in a different boat, so to speak.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Why would Microsoft want people to install or buy generic PC's with OSX installed?? I can't see any reason why Microsoft would be backing Psystar..

Well, this would be the conspiracy theorist's answer: Because they want to bring OS-X's shittiness quotient to Microsoftian levels. If OS-X gets installed in so many different machine configurations then it will lose its "It just works!" cachet. Everyone will have a story about hearing of someone who installed OS-X in his machine and it had so many bugs